{"id":3375,"date":"2013-07-13T01:47:54","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:47:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3375"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:47:54","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:47:54","slug":"03-on-accidental-changes-in-savitri-vol-08-on-the-new-edition-of-savitri-furthur-explanationspart-two","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/01-savitri\/08-on-the-new-edition-of-savitri-furthur-explanationspart-two\/03-on-accidental-changes-in-savitri-vol-08-on-the-new-edition-of-savitri-furthur-explanationspart-two","title":{"rendered":"-03_On Accidental Changes in Savitri.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\n
\nSri Aurobindo on Accidental <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\nChanges in Savitri<\/i> <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIn a letter of 1946, Sri Aurobindo mentioned some changes in
\nSavitri<\/i> that had come about "due to inadvertence", resulting
\nin lines he "found to be inferior to their original form and
\naltered back to that form". When he noticed that a "slip" had
\naccidentally replaced his original word, he changed it back to the "right word"
\nhe had written earlier.\u00b9 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo was referring here to his own handwritten
\nversions. But the accidental changes that occurred when his
\nlines were transcribed by others are far more numerous and
\nserious than what he called his own "slips". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo’s remarks about the inferiority of words
\nsubstituted "due to inadvertence" are relevant to all changes
\nin Savitri<\/i> which he did not himself make when he revised it. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe Importance of an Accurate Text<\/b> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo often used the term "overhead poetry"
\nin connection with his aim in writing Savitri.<\/i> He stressed the exacting nature of this kind of poetry: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn this technique it must be the right word and no other, in
\nthe right place and in no other, the right sounds and no
\nothers, in a design of sound that cannot be changed even a
\nlittle…. In the overhead poetry these things are quite imperative, it is all
\nor nothing\u2014or at least all or a fall.\u00b2 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis being so, any changes introduced accidentally by others
\nwould clearly be detrimental, if not fatal, to the "overhead" <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 1<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nor mantric quality of the lines of Savitri.<\/i>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nSuch unintentional changes sometimes occurred when Sri
\nAurobindo’s lines were copied, typed and printed. The work of preparing the new edition has involved finding these changes
\nthrough a comparison of the manuscripts with the copies, and
\nreversing the accidental changes in order to restore Sri Aurobindo’s authentic text. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nExamples of Accidental Changes with Sri Aurobindo’s
\nComments <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo commented on some typical mistakes in the
\nreading of his manuscripts. The mistakes on which he commented were, of course, corrected before the first edition. They
\nare not among the problems of the final text. But they show
\nhow a misreading of one or two letters in a word can alter the
\nmeaning. They illustrate the mechanism by which accidental
\nchanges took place and indicate Sri Aurobindo’s view of such changes. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe following line appeared in the typed copy of a passage in the 1936 version of Savitri:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nIts passive flower of love and doom it gave. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo changed "passive" to "passion-" on the typescript and wrote: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nGood Heavens! how did Gandhi come in there? Passion-flower, sir\u2014passion, not<\/i>
\npassive.\u00b3 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn his comment, Sri Aurobindo wrote "passion" and "passive" neatly and legibly. But in the manuscript from which the
\nline had been typed, one sees an open "o" that could easily
\nhave been a "v", and an "n" joined to the hyphen with a loop
\nresembling an "e". The reading of the word as "passive" was
\nnot due to mere carelessness on the part of the typist. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 2<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nOther examples can be found in unpublished manuscripts
\nof Sri Aurobindo’s correspondence on Savitri.<\/i> Encountering a
\nline typed <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nDeath, fall and sorrow as the spirit’s goods,<\/b> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo pointed out: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is "goads", not "goods". "Goods" could mean nothing
\nwhatever in this context. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA metrically defective line in the same typed copy,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n A Will expressive of soul’s duty, <\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nwas accompanied by a query by the typist, who suspected that
\nsomething was wrong but could not make out the right reading. Sri Aurobindo responded: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWell, if you bring down "deity" and turn it into "duty",
\nwhat can my line do but stutter? <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe misreading of "deity" as "duty" was due to the fact that
\nin the manuscript there is no visible loop of the "e" and no
\ndot of the "i"\u2014just as in the case of "goads" the "a" was
\nalmost identical to the "o". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe substitution of a word with a different sense because
\nof a peculiarity in the formation of one or two letters is a
\ncommon way that accidental changes came into Savitri<\/i> when
\nthe text was copied or typed from the manuscripts. The cases
\non which Sri Aurobindo commented, and those he corrected
\nwithout comment, resemble others that remained uncorrected
\nuntil the manuscripts were thoroughly re-examined during the
\npreparation of the latest edition of Savitri.<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nCorrections have been made in this edition only after a
\ncareful scrutiny of the manuscripts and a comparison of different versions. A word that is unclear in one manuscript is <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 3<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\noften quite legible in other manuscripts of the same passage.
\nBut the practice of consulting earlier manuscripts to confirm
\nthe reading of the final manuscript does not mean that readings were taken from various sources according to the preferences of the editors. The manuscript marked with Sri
\nAurobindo’s dictated revision has always been regarded as the
\none on which he intended the final text to be based, often
\nafter further revision. The last stages of Sri Aurobindo’s revision always form a well-defined series of steps in which inaccuracies of copying, typing and printing can be clearly distinguished from his intentional changes. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAs the years passed, Sri Aurobindo’s handwriting did not
\nbecome easier to read. Many of the final manuscripts of Savitri
\n<\/i>were written in the mid-1940s and are among his last writings
\nin his own hand, before the deterioration of his eyesight caused
\nhim to rely entirely on dictation. The condition of his eyes at
\nthat stage was unfavourable to neat handwriting, especially
\nafter he adopted the practice of writing passages for Savitri<\/i> in
\nsmall chit-pads, where the lack of space aggravated the tendency to illegibility. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOccasional slips by the disciple who copied hundreds of  pages of these manuscripts would not have mattered if the
\ndiscrepancies had all been corrected by Sri Aurobindo when
\nthe copies were read to him. But some of them escaped detection and found their way into the printed text. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt appears that Sri Aurobindo did not always notice that
\nhis lines had been altered. No other conclusion can be drawn
\nfrom the fact that he sometimes did not correct miscopied or
\nmistyped words in passages he revised. It can hardly be supposed that he found the mantric quality of his lines enhanced
\nby the vagaries of transcription. A reliance on accident to give
\nthe finishing touches to Savitri<\/i> would be contrary not only to
\ncommon sense, but to all that Sri Aurobindo has said about
\nhis use of the poem "as a means of ascension". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAn example will show beyond doubt that when Sri Aurobindo left an inaccurate transcription uncorrected, it does not
\nimply that he accepted the change made inadvertently by the <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 4<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ncopyist or typist. A passage he sent to Amal Kiran in 1936
\nincluded the line: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nOur prostrate soil bore the awakening Light. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIn the manuscript, no dot is visible for the "i" of "soil". This
\nmade it possible for Amal to read the "i" as a "u" and type
\nthe line: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nOur prostrate soul bore the awakening Light. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nWhen Sri Aurobindo read Amal’s typed copy, he corrected the
\nsubstitution of "a" for "the" four lines above this and the
\nmistyping of "instant’s urge" as "instant surge" later in the
\nsame passage. (In the manuscript, the "s" was written separately from "instant" and joined to "urge", so that it looks
\nlike "surge", though there is an apostrophe before the "s".)
\nBut in the same revision, Sri Aurobindo passed over "soul"
\nand did not correct it to "soil". <\/font><\/p>\n

\n"Soul" was a misreading of the manuscript, yet it seems
\nto give an appropriate meaning. Is it not possible that Sri Aurobindo accepted the substitution, knowing that the word he
\nhad written had been replaced by another word? <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis theory is negated by a letter Sri Aurobindo wrote at a
\nlater time, after he had restored "soil" and changed "Light"
\nto "ray" at the end of the line. Amal remembered "soul" in
\nhis reading of the earlier version and questioned "soil". Sri
\nAurobindo replied: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut "soil" is correct; for I am describing the revealing light
\nfalling upon the lower levels of the earth, not on the soul.
\nNo doubt, the whole thing is symbolic, but the symbol
\nhas to be kept in the front and the thing symbolised has to
\nbe concealed or only peep out from behind, it cannot come
\nopenly into the front and push aside the symbol.4 <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\nClearly, Sri Aurobindo knew what he was doing with his <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 5<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nimages. He wanted "soil" here, not "soul". Yet when he had
\nrevised the typescript, he had not corrected "soul" to "soil".
\nOnly when he was specifically asked about it did he decisively
\nreject the typed reading and insist on the word he had originally written. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that Sri Aurobindo had not noticed the inaccuracy when he revised
\nthe typed copy in 1936. When he let "soul" stand, it was "due
\nto inadvertence", not an intentional acceptance of the typist’s
\nsubstitution in place of the word in his own manuscript. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis example shows why, merely because Sri Aurobindo did not correct a mistake in the transcription of his lines,
\n<\/b>it
\n<\/b>cannot be assumed that he approved of the accidental change. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe proofs of the 1950 edition of Part One were read to
\nSri Aurobindo, though Parts Two and Three were prepared
\nfor publication after his passing. Some may find it disturbing
\nto think that when Sri Aurobindo revised the proofs of Part
\nOne, he left errors to be emended in later editions. Yet if one
\ncarefully compares the first edition even with the 1954 edition, this conclusion is inescapable. Many clearly necessary
\ncorrections were made in the second edition and subsequently.
\nThe mystery has been solved by Sri Aurobindo himself: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nMen’s way of doing things well is through a clear mental
\nconnection; they see things and do things with the mind
\nand what they want is a mental and human perfection.
\nWhen they think of a manifestation of Divinity, they think
\nit must be an extraordinary perfection in doing ordinary
\nhuman things\u2014… an accurate memory, not making mistakes, not undergoing any defeat or failure…. All that has
\nnothing to <\/b> do with manifesting the Divine…. These human ideas are false.5<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo’s dismissal of rigid ideas about the omniscience
\nof the Avatar clears the way for an accurate and authentic
\ntext of Savitri.<\/i> For such a text depends on the right and obligation of the editors to restore Sri Aurobindo’s original words <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 6<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwherever other words were accidentally substituted. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo said "a mistake must always be acknowledged and corrected."6<\/font> The disciple who copied the manuscripts and took dictation from Sri Aurobindo has followed
\nthe Master’s precept. As editor of Savitri,<\/i> Nirodbaran has reviewed his earlier work as scribe, and has conscientiously rectified any imperfections there may have been in his performance
\nof that difficult task.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 7<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sri Aurobindo on Accidental Changes in Savitri   In a letter of 1946, Sri Aurobindo mentioned some changes in Savitri that had come about "due…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-08-on-the-new-edition-of-savitri-furthur-explanationspart-two","wpcat-76-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3375","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}